Aim: To compared the rapid diagnostic tests with peripheral smear in the diagnosis of malaria. Materials and Methods: A total of 100 patients were included in this study. Each patient underwent a series of diagnostic procedures to assess the presence of malaria. Initially, a Rapid Diagnostic Test (RDT) was performed on each patient. For this test, a finger-prick blood sample was collected immediately, and the RDT was conducted using commercially available kits designed to detect malaria antigens, such as HRP-2 for Plasmodium falciparum and pLDH for nonfalciparum species. The RDT results were interpreted according to the manufacturer's instructions, typically within 15 to 30 minutes of sample collection.In addition to the RDT, a peripheral blood smear microscopy was conducted. For this procedure, a venous blood sample was drawn from each patient, which was then used to prepare both thick and thin blood smears. The thick smear was specifically stained with Giemsa stain to detect the presence of malaria parasites, while the thin smear was utilized for the identification of species and quantification of parasites. Results: The sensitivity of RDTs, which measures their ability to correctly identify malaria-positive cases, is 92.9%. The specificity, indicating the ability to correctly identify non-malaria cases, is slightly higher at 93.3%. The positive predictive value (PPV) is 96.9%, meaning that when the RDT test is positive, there is a high probability that the patient indeed has malaria. The negative predictive value (NPV) is 85.7%, reflecting a lower probability of correctly identifying non-infected individuals. The kappa statistic, a measure of agreement between the two diagnostic methods, is 0.86, indicating a strong agreement. The p-value of <0.001 suggests that the results are statistically significant, confirming that RDTs perform well compared to peripheral smear microscopy, although there are some differences.The Pearson correlation coefficient (r) is 0.91, indicating a very strong positive correlation between the two methods. The coefficient of determination (R²) is 0.83, suggesting that 83% of the variance in peripheral smear microscopy results can be explained by RDT results. The pvalue of <0.001 confirms that this correlation is statistically significant. Conclusion: We concluded that the use of RDTs as a rapid and reliable diagnostic tool for malaria, with high sensitivity, specificity, and strong agreement with peripheral smear microscopy. However, the slight discrepancies observed, particularly in species identification and low parasite densities, highlight the importance of microscopy as a confirmatory diagnostic method in clinical settings where accuracy is paramount